Home / Duct Cleaning / Guide
Duct cleaning - responsibility
When a kitchen is leased, a common question - and sometimes a dispute - is who is responsible for cleaning the extraction system: the tenant running the kitchen, or the landlord who owns the building. The answer depends on the lease, but the safety duty behind the cleaning does not disappear into the gap. Here is how responsibility for cleaning extraction in a leased kitchen is decided, and why the cleaning must happen whoever is named.
The short answer
Who is responsible for cleaning the extraction in a leased kitchen is decided by the lease - the contract between landlord and tenant - so the first place to look is the lease terms, not a general rule. That said, in most commercial leases the tenant who operates the kitchen is responsible for the extraction system serving it, because the tenant runs the equipment, generates the grease, and typically takes on repairing and maintaining obligations for the demised premises and the systems within them. So the usual answer is the tenant, but it depends on how the particular lease allocates responsibility for the building's systems and services, which can vary - some leases keep certain building services with the landlord, or split responsibility, so it has to be confirmed from the actual document rather than assumed. What does not change with the lease is the underlying duty: cleaning the extraction is a fire-safety necessity (grease-laden extract is a fire risk that must be managed), and fire-safety law places duties on whoever has control of the premises - the responsible person - which in an operating kitchen is usually the tenant, and can extend to the landlord where they retain control of parts of the building or its systems. So the cleaning has to happen regardless of any ambiguity in the lease, because the safety duty behind it does not disappear into the gap between landlord and tenant. The practical position is: read the lease to establish who is contractually responsible (usually the tenant for the kitchen they operate), confirm the fire-safety responsibility follows sensibly from who controls the premises, and where the lease is silent or ambiguous, resolve it in writing before it becomes a dispute or, worse, a gap in which the essential cleaning goes undone.
Key points
The lease decides
The starting point for who cleans the extraction in a leased kitchen is the lease, because responsibility for maintaining the premises and its systems is a matter of contract between landlord and tenant, set out in the lease terms. There is no single automatic rule that applies regardless of the lease; there is what the particular lease says about who is responsible for what. So the first and essential step is to read the lease - specifically its provisions on repair, maintenance and the building services - to establish how it allocates responsibility for the extraction system. This is where the contractual answer lives, and it can differ from one lease to another, so it has to be checked rather than assumed. A tenant or landlord who assumes responsibility lies with the other party, without reading the lease, risks being wrong - and risks the cleaning falling into the gap.
In most commercial leases, the allocation puts the tenant in charge of the premises they occupy and operate, including maintaining the systems within the demised premises. A tenant taking on a kitchen typically takes on repairing and maintaining obligations for that kitchen and its equipment, which usually includes the extraction system serving it - so the common outcome is that the tenant is responsible for cleaning the extraction. This makes practical sense: the tenant runs the kitchen, uses the extraction, and generates the grease that makes cleaning necessary, so the responsibility sits with the party whose operation creates the need. But usual is not universal - some leases retain certain building services with the landlord, or handle shared systems differently, or are drafted ambiguously - so while the tenant is the typical answer, the lease is the actual authority, and reading it is how you find out. The contract decides; the general expectation (tenant for the kitchen they operate) is a strong starting point, but the document is what governs.
The safety duty remains
Whatever the lease says about contractual responsibility, the underlying safety duty behind cleaning the extraction does not depend on the lease and does not disappear into any gap in it. Cleaning the extraction is not just a maintenance nicety; it is a fire-safety necessity, because a grease-laden extraction system is a genuine fire risk that has to be managed. And fire-safety law places duties on whoever has control of the premises - the responsible person under the fire-safety order - to assess and manage the fire risks, which includes the grease fire risk from the extraction. So there is a legal duty to keep the extraction managed for fire safety that sits on the party in control, regardless of how the lease allocates the maintenance contractually. The lease decides who pays for and arranges the cleaning as between landlord and tenant; the fire-safety duty ensures that someone must, because the risk has to be managed by law.
In an operating kitchen, the responsible person is usually the tenant who controls and runs the premises - which aligns with the tenant typically being contractually responsible for the cleaning too. But the fire-safety duty can also reach the landlord where they retain control of relevant parts of the building or its systems - for instance shared ductwork, or plant serving multiple tenants - because control, not just the lease label, determines who the responsible person is. Where control is shared, the duty can fall on more than one party. So the safety duty follows control of the premises, and it does not evaporate just because a lease is silent or ambiguous about the cleaning - the risk still exists and still has to be managed. This is why the cleaning must happen whoever the lease names: even if the contractual responsibility were genuinely unclear, the fire-safety duty on the party in control means the extraction cannot simply be left uncleaned. The safety duty is the backstop that ensures the essential cleaning is not lost in a landlord-tenant gap.
Where it goes wrong
The situation goes wrong when responsibility falls into a gap - when each party assumes the other is dealing with the extraction cleaning, so neither does, and the system goes uncleaned. This happens through assumption rather than the lease: a tenant may assume the landlord maintains the building's systems, while the landlord assumes the tenant maintains the kitchen they operate, and if neither reads the lease to confirm, the cleaning can simply not happen. The danger of this gap is not just a maintenance lapse but a fire-safety one, because the uncleaned extraction is a growing fire risk that nobody is managing. So the gap is worse than a dispute over who pays; it can be a real hazard, with grease building up in a system that neither party is looking after because each thinks the other is.
Ambiguity in the lease itself can create the same problem - a lease that does not clearly allocate the extraction, or uses general language that both parties read in their own favour, leaves the responsibility genuinely unclear and invites the gap. And even where the lease is clear, a tenant or landlord who has not read it may act on a wrong assumption. So the failure modes are assumption (not checking the lease) and ambiguity (the lease not being clear), and both end the same way: the cleaning not happening because responsibility is unclear or misunderstood. This is precisely why the safety duty matters as a backstop - the fire-safety obligation on the party in control means the extraction cannot lawfully be left uncleaned regardless of the contractual muddle - but relying on the backstop is not a good position, because it means the cleaning is happening late, under duty, rather than being arranged properly. Far better to close the gap before it opens, by establishing clearly who is responsible.
Getting it right
Getting the responsibility right is not complicated, and it prevents both the disputes and the dangerous gaps. The essential step is to establish clearly who is responsible for cleaning the extraction, from the lease, and to confirm it - ideally in writing, so there is no room for conflicting assumptions later. For a tenant taking on a kitchen, that means reading the lease's repair and maintenance provisions to see whether the extraction falls to them (it usually does), and if it is unclear, seeking clarification from the landlord or a professional before the ambiguity becomes a problem. For a landlord, it means being clear in the lease and in practice about which systems are the tenant's and which are retained, so both parties know where they stand. Clarity established up front is what stops the gap forming.
Alongside the contractual clarity, the fire-safety responsibility should be confirmed to follow sensibly from who controls the premises - usually the tenant for the kitchen they operate, with the landlord's duty covering any retained or shared systems. Where these align (the tenant both contractually responsible and the responsible person for the kitchen), the position is clean and the cleaning clearly sits with the tenant. Where control is shared or systems are common, the parties should be clear about how the duty is split, so nothing falls between them. And in all cases, the cleaning itself must actually be arranged and done, because that is the point of establishing responsibility - not to win an argument but to ensure the extraction is kept clean and safe. So getting it right means: read the lease to establish contractual responsibility (usually the tenant), confirm the fire-safety duty follows from control, resolve any ambiguity in writing before it becomes a dispute or a gap, and then make sure the cleaning is actually done. The goal throughout is that the extraction is cleaned - by the right party, clearly responsible - so the fire risk is managed and neither the safety nor the relationship suffers from confusion over who was supposed to act.
The takeaway
Who cleans the extraction in a leased kitchen is decided by the lease, so the first step is always to read it. In most commercial leases the tenant who operates the kitchen is responsible, because they run the equipment and generate the grease and typically take on maintaining the demised premises and its systems - but this is the usual outcome, not a universal rule, so it has to be confirmed from the actual document rather than assumed either way. What does not depend on the lease is the safety duty behind the cleaning: a grease-laden extraction is a fire risk, and fire-safety law places a duty to manage it on whoever controls the premises - usually the tenant, sometimes also the landlord where they retain control of shared systems.
So the lease names who is contractually responsible, and the fire-safety duty ensures the cleaning must happen regardless - the safety obligation on the party in control is the backstop that stops the essential cleaning being lost in a landlord-tenant gap. The situation goes wrong through assumption (not reading the lease) or ambiguity (the lease being unclear), when each party thinks the other is dealing with it and neither does, leaving a growing fire risk unmanaged. The way to avoid that is to establish responsibility clearly from the lease, confirm the fire-safety duty follows from who controls the premises, resolve any ambiguity in writing before it becomes a dispute, and then make sure the cleaning is actually done. The lease decides who; the safety duty ensures it happens - and the sensible course is to make both clear before the extraction is left uncleaned in the gap between them.
Questions
It depends on the lease, but in most commercial leases it is the tenant who operates the kitchen. The tenant runs the equipment, generates the grease, and typically takes on repairing and maintaining obligations for the demised premises and its systems - which usually includes the extraction serving the kitchen. So the common answer is the tenant. But this is the usual outcome, not a universal rule: some leases retain certain building services with the landlord or handle shared systems differently, so it has to be confirmed from the actual lease rather than assumed. Read the lease's repair and maintenance provisions to establish who is responsible for the extraction; the tenant is the strong starting expectation, but the document governs.
Then the ambiguity needs resolving before it becomes a problem, because an unclear lease invites the dangerous gap where each party assumes the other is responsible and neither cleans the extraction. If the lease does not clearly allocate the extraction, or uses general language both parties read in their own favour, seek clarification - a tenant from the landlord or a professional adviser, a landlord by being explicit about which systems are the tenant's - and confirm the outcome in writing, so there is no room for conflicting assumptions later. Meanwhile, the fire-safety duty on whoever controls the premises means the cleaning cannot lawfully be left undone regardless of the contractual ambiguity. So resolve the ambiguity in writing, and ensure the cleaning happens in the meantime.
It runs alongside the lease rather than overriding it, but it ensures the cleaning must happen regardless of the contract. Cleaning the extraction is a fire-safety necessity, and fire-safety law places a duty to manage the grease fire risk on whoever controls the premises - the responsible person. In an operating kitchen that is usually the tenant, which aligns with the tenant typically being contractually responsible too. But the duty can also reach the landlord where they retain control of shared or common systems. So the fire-safety duty does not replace the lease's allocation, but it guarantees that someone in control must manage the risk - which is the backstop that stops the cleaning being lost in a gap. The lease decides who arranges and pays; the safety duty ensures it is not simply left undone.
That is the dangerous gap, and it is worse than a payment dispute because it leaves a growing fire risk unmanaged. If the tenant assumes the landlord maintains the building's systems and the landlord assumes the tenant maintains the kitchen, and neither reads the lease to confirm, the extraction can simply go uncleaned - with grease building up into a fire hazard that nobody is looking after. The fire-safety duty on whoever controls the premises means this is not lawful (the risk still has to be managed), but relying on that backstop means the cleaning happens late and under duty rather than being arranged properly. The way to avoid the gap is to establish responsibility clearly from the lease, in writing, before it opens - so both parties know who acts, and the cleaning is actually done.
Yes - it is much better to establish responsibility for the extraction cleaning up front than to discover the ambiguity later, or worse, after a gap has left the system uncleaned. A tenant taking on a kitchen should read the lease's repair and maintenance provisions to confirm whether the extraction falls to them (it usually does), and clarify anything unclear with the landlord before signing or before problems arise. Establishing it clearly at the outset - ideally confirmed in writing - prevents both the disputes and the dangerous gaps that come from conflicting assumptions. Sorting it before taking on the kitchen means the responsibility is clear from day one, the cleaning is arranged by the right party, and the fire risk is managed properly rather than falling between landlord and tenant.
Whoever is responsible for the cleaning should keep the records, and they should be available to whoever needs them for fire-safety compliance. Cleaning the extraction to standard produces a record - a report with before and after photographs and certification - which is the evidence that the fire risk is being managed, relied on by insurers and fire risk assessments. The party responsible for the cleaning (usually the tenant) should keep these records as proof the duty is being met. Where the landlord retains a fire-safety interest (in shared systems, or as a responsible person for parts of the building), they may need access to the records too. So the responsible party keeps the records, but both parties may need sight of them - which is another reason to be clear about responsibility and to keep good documentation of the cleaning.
Whoever the lease makes responsible, the extraction has to be cleaned to manage the fire risk - we clean to standard and provide the report that proves it. Ask us about your leased kitchen.
